The extension request must be made by the original due date of the return. The extension of time if approved will be granted for a period not to exceed 6 months (October 15, 2019).
Deaf, Disabled or Blind .....................................c. Number of dependent children ........................d.
This form cannot be processed if page 2 is not completed and included. Treasury provides forms in Adobe Acrobat PDF format for downloading and use.
Read More about Adobe Acrobat and install the latest version. Michigan Treasury Online (MTO) is available for Registration, Sales, Use and Withholding (Saw) tax years 2015 and beyond.
MTO is free and provides secure 24/7 online access to registered Treasury business accounts. Some Saw forms are required to be submitted electronically through MTO or e-filed.
These designated forms will be specifically identified in the search results column with a link to MTO. Note: Your registration information and other forms submitted through MTO will be processed much faster than if paper filed.
Some Saw forms are required to be submitted electronically through MTO or e-filed. These MTO designated forms will be specifically identified in the search results column with a link to MTO, but no form link will be available.
Note: Your registration information and other forms submitted through MTO will be processed much faster than if paper filed. If you select the “Fillable” or “Print Only” link from the search results column, the form will open in a new tab.
Not all tax years for City of Detroit Individual Income forms are available on Treasury’s Website. Use this option to browse a list of forms by tax area.
Residents can apply online, over the phone or even at the TCF Center in early December. The Wayne County Treasurer's Office in March halted foreclosures through the end of the year.
It exempts qualifying homeowners from their property taxes for the current year, based on household income or circumstances. Homeowners approved for HP TAP can also reduce their back tax debt through PAYS.
This includes a deed, land contract, probate court order or divorce judgment. Any form of government ID with an address and picture of the homeowner and all residents over 18 years old.
If an applicant's income is higher than the guidelines, they can list appropriate debts and expenses with supporting documentation. The city has made some changes to the application process because of the COVID-19 pandemic: A notarized signature is not required for 2020; 2019 and 2018incometax returns will be accepted, and unemployment decisions will count as proof of income.
Once approved, those eligible for PAYS will receive a letter from the Wayne County Treasurer's Office with next steps about the back tax program. Those who have back tax debt and do not qualify for HP TAP or were denied, can look into other payment plans at www.waynecounty.com.
A representative from the Wayne County Treasurer's Office also will be available on-site to address questions regarding the PAYS program, he said. More than 5,000Detroiters have remained in their homes through the HP TAP program, said Willie Donnell, administrator of the city's Board of Review.
Horn said the Office of the Assessor recently started calling residents who applied in 2019 for the HP TAP but hadn't yet submitted their 2020 application, and are ramping up other outreach efforts. Wayne County Treasurer Eric Sabre said in March that he would suspend foreclosures for the rest of 2020.
A Detroit News investigation in January found the city overtaxed homeowners by at least $600 million between 2010 and 2016. In recent years, tax foreclosures of owner-occupied homes in Detroit dropped from 9,111 in 2015 to 514 in 2019, according to city data.
Detroit Mayor Mike Duncan proposed a plan in October to offer government-controlled vacant properties at a 50% discount for thousands of over-assessed homeowners, and moving them to the top of waiting lists for affordable housing. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the Michigan Supreme Court.
Download PDF STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS APEX LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL INC., UNPUBLISHED May 17, 2018 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. By this action, Apex challenged Detroit ’s income tax assessment and sought a refund of income taxes paid.
PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case involves the liability of Apex for payment of Detroit income taxes. According to the securities purchase agreement governing the sale, the closing was to be conducted in the city of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada.2 Apex realized significant capital gains from the sale, in the amount of approximately $36 million (Canadian).
The parties filed cross-motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); the dispositive issue was whether Apex possessed the requisite constitutional “nexus” with Detroit to render it subject to Detroit ’s taxing authority. Apex argued in the alternative that it was exempt from cityincometax as a qualifying financial institution, and that if it was liable for taxation, its income should be subject to apportionment.
The Tribunal held that Detroit had not established that Apex (1) had a “commercial domicile” within the city or (2) had sufficient 2 Brian Demonic, a managing partner of Huron and president of Apex, testified at his deposition and averred via affidavit that the closing took place as scheduled in Canada, although Detroit notes that emails exchanged by members of Huron and the law firm hired to assist with the transaction appear to indicate that Demonic was not physically present at the closing. If fraud is not claimed, this Court reviews the Tax Tribunal's decision for misapplication of the law or adoption of a wrong principle.
We deem the Tax Tribunal's factual findings conclusive if they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. But when statutory interpretation is involved, this Court reviews the Tax Tribunal's decision DE Nova.
We also review DE Nova the grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition. “A Tax Tribunal decision that is not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record is an error of law.
.” Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Course, 227 Mich App 366, 388-389; 576 NW2d 667 (1998). Gillette Co v DEP’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 303, 312; 597 NW2d 595 (1993), quoting Quill Corp v North Dakota ex rel Hakama, 504 US 298, 306; 112 S Ct 4 The Tribunal noted that Apex had already sought and received a refund of income taxes paid to the State of Michigan for the relevant tax years.
Michigan’s due process clause is generally construed no more broadly than the federal guarantee. “A tax will sustain a Commerce Clause challenge when it: (1) is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing state, (2) is fairly apportioned, (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and (4) is fairly related to the services provided by the state.” I'd.
Detroit imposes an income tax on its residents under an ordinance that incorporates the cityincometax act, MCL 141.501 ET seq. The parties do not dispute the Tribunal’s application of constitutional standards to this state-authorized income tax, despite the fact that Detroit is not itself a state agency.
The parties and the Tribunal did not specifically address the application of the Due Process or Commerce Clauses to Detroit ’s assessment of income tax to Apex; nonetheless, the majority of the parties’ arguments, and the Tribunal’s decision, centered on whether Apex had a “nexus” with Detroit such that the assessment of income tax against it was constitutionally valid. However, the Tribunal, before setting forth its constitutional analysis, noted that the cityincometax act authorized Detroit to collect income tax on “the taxable net profits of a corporation doing business in the city, being levied on such part of the taxable net profits as is earned by the corporation as a result of work done, services rendered and other business activities conducted in the city, as determined in accordance with this ordinance.” MCL 141.614.
The Tribunal further noted that the act defines “doing business” as “the conduct of any activity with the object of gain or benefit” except for certain activities related to the solicitation of orders for the sale of tangible property or the storage of personal property. The Tribunal’s conclusion was not based on the “misapplication of the law or adoption of a wrong principle” and was supported by “competent, material, and substantial evidence.” Briggs Tax SVC, 485 Mich at 75.
The Tribunal held that Apex’s “activity” in acquiring and holding Lab stat’s stock satisfied the “any activity” standard and that it was “conducted with the objective of gain or benefit,” noting that affidavits from employees of Huron indicated that the acquisition and sale of Lab stat shares was an investment opportunity, that Apex was created to -4- maximize that investment, that Apex received dividends by virtue of its holding of Lab stat shares, and that Apex ultimately sold Lab stat shares at a profit. We agree with the Tribunal that the application of this concept, which does not appear in the cityincometax act, is unnecessary to the determination of whether Apex was “doing business in the city of Detroit ; the plain language of MCL 141.614 contemplates the assessment of income tax (apportioned, if necessary) on a corporation that is doing any business in the city ; the city need not be the “principal place from which the trade or business” of the corporation is directed or managed, MCL 206.6(1).
After dismissing the “commercial domicile” argument, the Tribunal then employed the constitutional analysis discussed in Quill, 504 US at 306-317, ultimately concluding that the record did not demonstrate that Apex had either a physical presence in or substantial connection with Detroit. This approach was not based on an error of law; in order to satisfy the statutory requirement of doing business “in the city,” Apex would have had to at least meet the minimum constitutional standards under the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause.
See Caterpillar, Inc v DEP’t of Treasury, 440 Mich App 400 at 413; 488 NW2d 182 (1992) (applying constitutional standards in determining if a “substantial nexus” existed between the respondent and Michigan under the Single Business Tax Act, which provided for taxation of a corporation’s “business activity” in Michigan). The Tribunal concluded that Apex lacked a “physical presence” in Detroit, noting that, although the cityincometax act does not define “physical presence,” the income tax act of 1967 defines physical presence as any activity conducted by the taxpayer or on behalf of the taxpayer by the taxpayer's employee, agent, or independent contractor acting in a representative capacity.
Physical presence does not include the activities of professionals providing services in a professional capacity or other service providers if the activity is not significantly associated with the taxpayer's ability to establish and maintain a market in this state. Essentially, these officers and directors worked to increase the value of Lab stat and negotiate the sale of Lab stat shares for the benefit of Huron; these activities were not conducted “on behalf” of Apex any more than a business transaction is conducted “on behalf” of the bank account into which the proceeds will be deposited.
Moreover, the Tribunal noted that to the -5- extent Apex employed professional consultants, this fell under the exclusion found in MCL 206.621(2)(b). We agree, as the record shows that the use of professional consultants, such as law firms and marketing consultants, was done to facilitate the sale of a Canadian company to a Canadian purchaser in order to benefit the Fund’s investors, not to establish or maintain a market in Detroit.
We decline to do so, as those findings were supported by “more than a scintilla” of evidence, Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App at 388-389, and a reasonable mind would accept that evidence as sufficient to support the conclusion. The lack of physical presence, under Quill, renders Detroit ’s assessment of income tax against Apex violation of the Commerce Clause; Detroit therefore cannot satisfy MCL 141.614’s requirement that the entity being assessed tax be doing business “in the city.” 7 The Tribunal properly granted summary disposition in favor of Apex under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
/s/ Deborah A. Servitor /s/ Amy Roxanne Krause /s/ Mark T. Bootstrap 6 The record indicates that mail received at that address was generally marked “Care of Huron Capital Partners, LLC.” 7 On appeal, Detroit does not assert the “unitary business” theory it argued below; we do not disturb the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding that theory.